The director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Peter Breysse, continues to defend his agency's minimal risk levels (MRLs) for perfluorinated chemicals that were released in June 2018 as part of a draft toxicological profile. In response to questions posed at a recent Senate hearing, Breysse noted that ATSDR’s draft MRLs roughly corresponded to drinking water levels of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and 21 ppt for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Where these levels are exceeded, ATSDR has recommended that residents take steps to lower their exposures and contact state and local authorities. Breysse also recommended that residents consult with physicians and noted that ATSDR has information on its website for physicians to consult regarding exposure risks for these chemicals.

The drinking water levels referenced in the ATSDR toxicological profile (14 ppt for PFOS and 21 ppt for PFOA) correspond generally with regulatory standards implemented in several states, including New Jersey and Vermont, both of which have the lowest regulatory levels for these compounds in the United States. However, the ATSDR MRLs are much stricter than U. S. EPA’s drinking water advisory level of 70 ppt. In addition, many news outlets reported that U.S. EPA had sought to delay ATSDR’s issuance of its June 2018 toxicological profile. Perhaps coincidentally, at about the same time as ATSDR issued its draft report, U.S. EPA announced plans to begin to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS.

Although ATSDR and U.S. EPA continue to work cooperatively (at least on paper) to address PFOA and PFOS at contaminated properties throughout the United States, it remains to be seen how well these agencies will cooperate in setting an MCL for these contaminants. The agencies' "cooperative" relationship may face choppy waters, especially in light of ATSDR's continued defense of its MRLs and U.S. EPA's skeptical view regarding same.

In Midterm Elections, Colorado Voters Reject High Profile Anti-Fracking Initiativetag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c022ad3be9d3d200b2018-11-08T10:26:16-06:002018-11-08T10:22:45-06:00On Tuesday, November 6th, Colorado voters rejected a highly contested ballot initiative which would have set unprecedented limits on oil and gas drilling in the state. The measure, Proposition 112, would have prohibited drilling new oil or natural gas wells within 2,500 feet of certain occupied buildings—including homes, schools and hospitals; various water sources—including lakes, rivers and creeks; and other areas specifically designated as “vulnerable” by the state.Matthew G. Lawson

On Tuesday, November 6th, Colorado voters rejected a highly contested ballot initiative which would have set unprecedented limits on oil and gas drilling in the state. The measure, Proposition 112, would have prohibited drilling new oil or natural gas wells within 2,500 feet of certain occupied buildings—including homes, schools and hospitals; various water sources—including lakes, rivers and creeks; and other areas specifically designated as “vulnerable” by the state. In total, a report from the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission estimated that the measure would have prohibited new hydraulic fracturing operations on as much as 95% of the land in Colorado’s top oil and gas producing counties.

The proposition received a high degree of pre-election attention, with individuals from politician Bernie Sanders to actor Leonardo DiCaprio encouraging Colorado voters to support the initiative. While early polling indicated Proposition 112 was supported by the majority of Colorado voters, the initiative was ultimately defeated with 57% of the state’s voters opposing it in Tuesday’s elections. In what may have served as a fatal blow, Colorado’s governor-elect, Jared Polis, distanced himself from the ballot initiative in the days leading up to the election. The newly elected Democrat had campaigned as a pro-environment alternative to his Republican opponent, but categorized the ballot initiative as “economically damaging” to the state of Colorado.

At present, New York, Vermont, and Maryland are the only states to have established outright bans on fracking. None of those states, however, has oil and gas reserves approaching the production capacity of Colorado. The state’s oil and gas industry has grown dramatically in the last decade, with the state’s production of crude oil rising from 73,000 barrels per day in 2008 to 477,000 barrels per day in August 2018. As the state’s production of oil and gas continues to grow, it appears likely that legislative battles over fracking regulations will continue to unfold.

New Law Requires Widespread Testing for Unregulated Contaminantstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c022ad3bb9232200b2018-10-26T16:48:42-05:002018-10-26T16:48:42-05:00By Steven M. Siros On October 23, 2018, President Trump signed into law America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 which, in addition to authorizing federal funding for water infrastructure projects, also requires drinking water systems serving more than 3,300 people to test for unregulated contaminants pursuant to U.S. EPA’s Unregulated...Steven

On October 23, 2018, President Trump signed into law America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 which, in addition to authorizing federal funding for water infrastructure projects, also requires drinking water systems serving more than 3,300 people to test for unregulated contaminants pursuant to U.S. EPA’s Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR). Prior to this new law, only drinking water systems that served more than 10,000 people were required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. Contaminants covered by the UCMR include PFOA, PFOS, 1,2,3-TCP, hexavalent chromium and 1,4-dioxane. This new testing requirement, which goes into effect in 2021, is expected to add more than 5,000 drinking water systems to the list of systems that are required to test for these unregulated contaminants.

The challenge that continues to be faced by drinking water systems across the country is what to do if these contaminants are in fact found in the drinking water supply. As their name would imply, U.S. EPA has yet to set drinking standards for these contaminants although many states and local entities continue to enact a patchwork of regulatory requirements often without regard to the technical feasibility of treating these chemicals and/or the health risks actually posed by these chemicals. Unfortunately, until such time as U.S. EPA takes action to enact a federal standard, the regulated community will continue to be subject to this regulatory quagmire and now, with the new testing requirements, more drinking water systems will be forced to struggle with this issue without any clear regulatory guidance.

The Trump Administration has released its Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. This regulatory agenda “reports on the actions administrative agencies plan to issue in the near and long term [and] demonstrates this Administration’s ongoing commitment to fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation toward reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people.”

According to the Trump Administration, the regulatory agenda reflects the following broad regulatory reform priorities:

Advancing Regulatory Reform

Public Notice of Regulatory Development

Transparency

Consistent Practice across the Federal Government

The EPA-specific regulatory agenda lists 148 regulatory actions in either the proposed rule stage or final rule stage, and provides information about the planned regulatory actions and the timing of those actions. Notable regulatory actions under consideration by EPA include:

Notice of proposed rulemaking planned for December 2018; final rule planned for October 2019

More information, and EPA's Statement of Priorities, can be found here.

Pipeline Company Found Guilty for 2015 California Coastal Oil Spilltag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c022ad3b08abd200b2018-09-12T15:51:27-05:002018-09-12T13:34:02-05:00Last week, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney and California Attorney General obtained guilty verdicts against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. regarding the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill near Santa Barbara, CA.Steven

Last week, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney and California Attorney General obtained guilty verdicts against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. regarding the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill near Santa Barbara, CA. By way of background, on May 19, 2015, a pipeline operated by Plains to transport crude oil ruptured on shore just north of Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, California, causing over 140,000 gallons of crude oil to be released from the pipeline, which spilled crude oil into the Pacific Ocean and across coastal beaches. At trial, testimony revealed that over 100,000 gallons of crude oil were never recovered.

Plains was convicted of one felony for unlawfully discharging oil into state waters and eight misdemeanors for the following: failing to timely call emergency response agencies; violating a county ordinance banning oil spills; and killing marine mammals, protected sea birds, and other sea life. Sentencing will be held on December 13, 2018.

According to a statement by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the verdict “should send a message: If you endanger our environment and wildlife, we will hold you accountable. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue prosecuting corporate negligence and willful ignorance to the fullest extent of the law.” (Emphasis added.)

As noted in Law360 (sub. req.), the verdict “underscore[s] the importance of pipeline companies taking their maintenance, inspection and compliance duties seriously, especially in states like California which have strict requirements and liability where knowledge or intent isn’t necessary to sustain criminal convictions.” Furthermore, the conviction specifically as to failure to notify emergency responders “underscores the importance of that duty and that companies must ensure their policies leave no room for error.” The relative rarity of criminal environmental convictions for corporations means this case is one to watch is it moves towards sentencing and/or appeals.

Chicago’s Trump Tower Sued for Violation of the Clean Water Acttag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c022ad3a969ac200b2018-08-17T10:48:03-05:002018-08-17T10:47:31-05:00In a recently filed lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, the State of Illinois accused Trump International Hotel & Tower of violating multiple clean water laws and endangering fish and aquatic life in the Chicago River. Matthew G. Lawson

In a recently filed lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, the State of Illinois accused Trump International Hotel & Tower of violating multiple clean water laws and endangering fish and aquatic life in the Chicago River. The lawsuit, filed on August 13, 2018 by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, alleges that the Trump Tower’s water intake cooling system failed to comply with state and federal permit requirements, which are designed to limit the number of fish killed by the intake screens or sudden changes in pressure and temperature caused by the cooling system. The state’s lawsuit further alleges that the Trump Tower's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (“NPDES Permit”) expired on August 31, 2017, and that the building had been operating without a permit for nearly a year.

The 1,400 ft. skyscraper is one of the city’s largest users of river water. In order to cool the tower, the building, like most other buildings along the river, uses a water intake cooling system that siphons approximately 20 million gallons of water per day (“MGD”) from the Chicago River. After being utilized to cool the building, this water is subsequently pumped back into the river up to 35 degrees hotter than its original temperature. Because the building's intake system withdraws more than 2 MGD, the building must comply with regulations promulgated under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). According to the attorney general’s lawsuit, these regulations required Trump Tower to document the efforts it has taken to minimize the impact of its intake system on the river’s fish and other aquatic life—actions which the lawsuit claims the building failed to complete. According to a Chicago Tribunearticle published in June 2018, Trump Tower is the only building relying on water from the Chicago River that has failed to document these efforts.

In May 2017, Trump Tower submitted a delayed application to renew its then expiring NPDES permit. Despite the building’s alleged failure to timely submit a permit renewal request, it appears the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) had been preparing to reissue the Trump Tower’s NPDES Permit as recently as last January. However, the agency changed course after several environmental groups threatened to sue prompting the agency to delay reissuance of the NPDES Permit.

Representatives of the Trump organization have responded to the lawsuit with criticism. “We are disappointed that the Illinois Attorney General would choose to file this suit considering such items are generally handled at the administrative level,” stated a representative for the Trump Organization. “One can only conclude that this decision was motivated by politics.”

Environmental groups responded positively to the lawsuit. The Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Chicago River, which had jointly announced their own plans to bring suit against Trump Tower last June, stated that they looked forward to assisting in the state’s lawsuit “to assure an outcome that addresses the permit violations, protects additional aquatic life from harm, and makes the river healthier for fish."

This is not the first time Attorney General Madigan has gone after Trump Tower for discharge violations. In 2012, the State sued Trump Tower for failing to obtain a permit for the same intake system. The 2012 lawsuit resulted in Trump Tower agreeing to pay $46,000 in fines and obtaining the proper permitting. In its most recent lawsuit, the State is seeking a preliminary and (after trial) permanent injunction to stop Trump Tower from using its cooling water intake system. In addition, the complaint seeks $10,000 in daily penalties. In an interesting twist, it appears that industry groups previously urged the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency to overhaul or eliminate the CWA’s cooling water intake rules, which industry groups described as “cumbersome.”

Drinking Water Providers Seek Pause in Rush to Set MCLs for Emerging Contaminantstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c022ad38615a8200d2018-08-03T12:22:29-05:002018-08-03T12:22:30-05:00The presence of emerging contaminants such as perfluorinated chemicals (PFOS) and 1,4-dioxane in drinking water often make the headlines as sampling technologies become more sophisticated and these contaminants are being detected with increasing frequency in drinking water systems across the country.Steven

The presence of emerging contaminants such as perfluorinated chemicals (PFOS) and 1,4-dioxane in drinking water often make the headlines as sampling technologies become more sophisticated and these contaminants are being detected with increasing frequency in drinking water systems across the country. There has been a significant push to compel regulators to set regulatory standards and/or issue health advisories for these emerging contaminants, but the impact that these standards and health advisories have on drinking water systems cannot be ignored.

In reaction to media coverage of these emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies, state regulators have been at the front of the pack in trying to set what are often conflicting standards that may not always reflect the current state of science regarding these contaminants. These state regulations often fail to consider the difficulties that drinking water suppliers face in complying with these standards, especially in instances where there are not established treatment technologies that are capable of treating these contaminants in a cost-effective manner. In addition, when setting health advisories for various contaminants, U.S. EPA typically does not consider the effect of those advisories on drinking water providers. It is often the case, however, that these providers are pressured either by state regulators and/or the general public to ensure that the drinking water meets these health advisory levels, which are set without regard to whether cost-effective technologies exist that are capable of treating these emerging contaminants.

These concerns were recently highlighted in comments submitted by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) in response to ongoing efforts by U.S. EPA to set standards for PFOS in drinking water. The AMWA cautioned U.S. EPA from rushing to adopt an MCL for PFOS, noting that “it is crucial that we have effective treatment technologies that are available and feasible to implement before any regulatory or non-regulatory action is taken.” The AMWA further noted that significant gaps existed with respect to the public health effects of PFOS in drinking water systems and recommended that these gaps should be remedied before regulatory standards were set by U.S. EPA.

The AMWA and other water quality professionals support a federal standard that would apply to all drinking water systems and that appropriately takes into consideration the current state of science regarding these emerging contaminants, but also considers the technical and economic feasibility of treating these contaminants. Otherwise, there will continue to be a patchwork of regulations for these emerging contaminants, as is the case in New Jersey, where the state maximum contaminant level for PFOS has been set at 14 parts per trillion, as compared to the U.S. EPA health advisory of 70 parts per trillion. Another example of such an emerging contaminant is 1,4-dioxane, which has a U.S. EPA health advisory level of 0.35 parts per billion. Some states have relied on that health advisory level to compel drinking water systems to treat 1,4-dioxane to below 0.35 parts per billion notwithstanding that there are not cost-effective treatment methodologies to treat 1,4-dioxane to that level. Other states, such as Oklahoma, have no regulatory standard for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water. Until such time as the science and treatment technologies catch up with public perception, it will continue to be difficult for drinking water providers to know with certainty exactly how to deal with these emerging contaminants.

Environmental Groups Set Stage for Likely Legal Challenge to FERC GHG NEPA Review Policytag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c022ad3528813200c2018-06-12T19:50:45-05:002018-06-12T19:50:45-05:00On May 18, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order denying a rehearing request on FERC’s issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a natural gas pipeline project for Dominion Transmission. An environmental group had challenged the certificate, arguing in part that FERC failed to adequately consider the upstream and downstream impacts of the project.Steven

On May 18, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order denying a rehearing request on FERC’s prior issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a natural gas pipeline project for Dominion Transmission. An environmental group had challenged that certificate, arguing in part that FERC failed to adequately consider the upstream and downstream impacts of the project. These upstream and downstream impacts, according to the environmental group, included greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. FERC, on a party-line vote, concluded that the upstream and downstream GHG impacts of this particular project were not sufficiently causally connected to and/or the reasonable foreseeable effect of the project and therefore fell outside of the scope of the required NEPA analysis. FERC distinguished its holding with the decision in Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017) by noting that in that case, the pipeline project was delivering natural gas to identifiable gas-fired electric generating plants and therefore the downstream use of the gas was foreseeable.

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network sent a letter to FERC asking it to formally rescind its May 18 order, claiming that FERC’s decision was contrary to the requirements of NEPA. This letter, along with similar letters from other environmental groups, are likely precursors to legal challenges to FERC’s interpretation of its obligations under NEPA. Notwithstanding the positions being advanced by these environmental groups, FERC continues to review and approve pipeline projects without requiring a detailed analysis of GHG emissions as evidenced by FERC’s May 31 approval of the Okeechobee Lateral Project.

White House Cites National Security Concerns as Administration Moves to Save Coal and Nuclear Power Plantstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c0224df390c46200b2018-06-07T12:56:37-05:002018-06-07T12:56:37-05:00A combination of stagnant power consumption growth and the rise of natural gas and renewable power sources has resulted in the displacement and potential closure of many older coal and nuclear power plants in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, since 2008, coal and nuclear energy have seen a continuous decline in their percentage of the nation’s total energy generation market. And in 2015, the closure of coal fueled power plants accounted for more than 80% of the nation’s retired energy generating capacity.Matthew G. Lawson

A combination of stagnant power consumption growth and the rise of natural gas and renewable power sources has resulted in the displacement and potential closure of many older coal and nuclear power plants in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, since 2008, coal and nuclear energy have seen a continuous decline in their percentage of the nation’s total energy generation market. And in 2015, the closure of coal fueled power plants accounted for more than 80% of the nation’s retired energy generating capacity.

In an attempt to reverse these trends, President Donald Trump has ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take “immediate action” to stem the closure of nuclear and coal power plants. In an official White House statement issued on June 1, 2018, the Trump Administration stated that “keeping America's energy grid and infrastructure strong and secure protects our national security… Unfortunately, impending retirements of fuel-secure power facilities are leading to a rapid depletion of a critical part of our nation's energy mix, and impacting the resilience of our power grid.”

The statement is not the first time the Administration has asserted that coal and nuclear plants are critical to national security. In January of this year, Mr. Perry presented a sweeping proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), which requested subsidies for struggling coal and nuclear plants that were no longer able to operate profitably in the current energy markets. In presenting the proposal, Mr. Perry argued that coal and nuclear plants’ unique ability to store at least 90 days of fuel on-site made the energy sources critical to the reliability and stability of the United States’ energy markets. In a 5-0 decision, FERC rejected the Energy Secretary’s proposal, and casted doubt on Mr. Perry’s claims that energy markets would become vulnerable and unreliable without contributions from coal and nuclear power.

It appears the Trump Administration may now be seeking a more direct route to provide assistance to coal and nuclear power plants. According to Bloomberg, a draft memo from the Department of Energy (“DOE”) reveals that the agency is considering using its authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act of 1950 to force regional grid operators to buy electricity from a list of coal and nuclear plants the department deems crucial to national security. The plan would require suppliers to purchase power from the plants for 24 months in order to starve off closures as the Administration works to provide a long-term solution. If the DOE plan is implemented, it is likely to face legal challenges from both utilities and environmental groups. Regardless of whether the DOE elects to pursue this strategy, it appears that the Trump Administration is focused on working to protect aging coal and nuclear plants.

CWA Regulation of Groundwater: Circuit Split or U.S. EPA Rulemaking?tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb0a04a208970d2018-04-17T19:19:11-05:002018-04-17T19:19:11-05:00Recent decisions from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits—finding that the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) could regulate discharges into groundwater that ultimately migrate into navigable waterways—may prompt U.S. EPA to revisit its position that the CWA applies to discharges from a “point source via ground water that has a direct hydrologic connection to surface water.”Steven

Recent decisions from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits—finding that the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) could regulate discharges into groundwater that ultimately migrate into navigable waterways—may prompt U.S. EPA to revisit its position that the CWA applies to discharges from a “point source via ground water that has a direct hydrologic connection to surface water.” On April 12, 2018, the Fourth Circuit concluded that a release from pipeline that impacted groundwater that ultimately discharged to a nearby creek could trigger liability under the CWA. See Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.(4th Cir. April 12, 2018). This decision follows on the heels of a Ninth Circuit decision affirming a district court's decision allowing a CWA citizen suit to proceed that alleged CWA violations associated with sanitary wastewater discharges through permitted underground injection wells that ultimately discharged into the ocean. See Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui(9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2018). Defendants are likely to seek Supreme Court review of both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit decisions.

Following the Ninth Circuit decision, on February 20, 2018, U.S. EPA issued a notice seeking comment by May 21, 2018 on whether it should review and potentially revise its previous positions on groundwater discharges; specifically, whether it is consistent with the CWA to subject discharges to jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater to CWA permitting. U.S. EPA also is seeking comment on whether some or all of such discharges are addressed adequately through other federal authorities, existing state statutory or regulatory programs, or through other existing federal regulations and permit programs. It will be interesting to see where U.S. EPA ultimately comes out on this issue; U.S. EPA filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the district court's decision that discharges reaching navigable waters through groundwater are covered by the CWA. However, statements in U.S. EPA’s request for comments would seem to suggest that U.S. EPA is rethinking its position on this issue. We will continue to follow and provide updates as this process unfolds.

U.S. EPA Removes Portion of Former Refinery Site from NPL: Precursor to More Expedited CERCLA Cleanups?tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b8d2e60110970c2018-03-30T05:41:01-05:002018-03-30T05:41:01-05:00After almost 30 years on the NPL, U.S. EPA has removed the surface portion of the 55-acre Pacific Coast Pipeline site from the NPL. Since being added to the NPL in 1989, more than 42,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils have been removed from the site and a multi-layer cap has been installed. The groundwater portion of the site will remain on the NPL in order to address benzene and protect drinking water and agricultural wells.Steven

After almost 30 years having been listed on the NPL, U.S. EPA has removed the surface portion of the 55-acre Pacific Coast Pipeline site from that distinctive list. Since being added to the NPL in 1989, more than 42,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils have been removed from the site and a multi-layer cap has been installed. The groundwater portion of the site will still remain on the NPL in order to address benzene and protect drinking water and agricultural wells.

One goal of EPA Administrator Pruitt’s Superfund Task Force was to improve and expedite site cleanups and accelerate full and partial deletions for sites that meet all applicable requirements. “The partial de-listing of the Pacific Coast Pipeline site is an example of EPA’s commitment to accelerate the remediation of contaminated sites and transform them into productive assets for the community,” said Pruitt.

Whether this partial NPL deletion is a precursor of U.S. EPA taking a more streamlined approach to CERCLA cleanups remains to be seen, but it would appear to be a step in the right direction.

On Monday, March 5, 2018, EPA issued a report titled EPA Year in Review 2017-2018. The report contains an introductory letter from Administrator Pruitt, who states that he has been “hard at work enacting President Donald Trump’s agenda during [his] first year as EPA Administrator.” The report highlights accomplishments at EPA over the past year, with a focus on the roll back of regulations from the Obama Administration, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States Rule. Administrator Pruitt stated that “[i]n year one, EPA finalized 22 deregulatory actions, saving Americans more than $1 billion in regulatory costs.”

According to the report, Administrator Scott Pruitt set forth a “back-to-basics agenda” with three objectives:

Refocusing the Agency back to its core mission

Restoring power to the states through cooperative federalism

Adhering to the rule of law and improving Agency processes

The report also identifies EPA’s “core mission” as “clean air, land, and water,” and argues that in recent years, “central responsibilities of the Agency took a backseat to ideological crusades, allowing some environmental threats – like cleaning up toxic land – to go unaddressed.” In light of these alleged lapses, EPA states that:

Administrator Pruitt returned the Agency to its core mission and prioritized issues at the heart of EPA’s purpose: ensuring access to clean air and water, cleaning up contaminated lands and returning them to communities for reuse, improving water infrastructure, and ensuring chemicals entering the marketplace are reviewed for safety. In just one year, EPA made immense progress on these fronts, and the American people have seen real, tangible results.

Topics covered in the report include:

Air: Improving Air Quality

Water: Provide for Clean and Safe Water

Land: Revitalize Land for Reuse

Chemicals: Ensure Safety of Chemicals

Enforcement

Cooperative Federalism and Public Participation

Rule of Law

The report concludes with several pages of quotes from elected officials, state environmental agencies, and industry representatives, offering praise for the work done by EPA and Administrator Pruitt:

2017: The Corporate Environmental Lawyer Year in Reviewtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b7c9407af5970b2017-12-28T17:17:39-06:002017-12-28T17:17:39-06:00As 2017 draws to an end, we wanted to thank everyone that follows our Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog. 2017 has been an interesting year and we have enjoyed providing information on critical environmental, health and safety issues for the regulated community. As part of the year in review, we thought it might be interesting to highlight the most popular posts from each of the four quarters in 2017.Steven

As 2017 draws to an end, we wanted to thank everyone that follows our Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog. 2017 has been an interesting year and we have enjoyed providing information on critical environmental, health and safety issues for the regulated community. As part of the year in review, we thought it might be interesting to highlight the most popular posts from each of the four quarters in 2017.

As we previously reported on this blog, in June, Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg found that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) did not fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it granted easements to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to cross Lake Oahe, a federally regulated water in North Dakota. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 16-cv-01534 (June 14, 2017). In light of that ruling, Plaintiffs, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (the Tribes) asked the court to vacate the DAPL’s permits and easements and enjoin further operations until the Corps fully complies with NEPA. In October, Judge Boasberg denied the Tribes’ request and allowed DAPL to continue operations while the Corps completes its supplementary NEPA analysis.

Following the October ruling allowing operations to continue, in November, the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline leaked an estimated 210,000 gallons of crude oil in South Dakota. Following this widely report pipeline oil spill, on December 4, 2017, Jude Boasberg ordered DAPL owner, Dakota Access, LLC, the Corps and the Tribes to “coordinate to finalize an oil-spill response plan affecting Tribal resources and lands at Lake Oahe.” Judge Boasberg also ordered Dakota Access, with input from the Tribes, to hire an independent third-party engineering expert to conduct a compliance audit of the DAPL. Both the oil spill response plan and the compliance audit report must be submitted to the court by April 1, 2018.

In addition, Dakota Access was ordered to submit bi-monthly reports to the court providing detailed information with respect to the segment of the pipeline crossing Lake Oahe. These bi-monthly reports will include:

Inline-inspection run results or direct-assessment results performed on the pipeline during the reporting period;

The results of all internal-corrosion management programs and any actions taken in response to findings of internal corrosion;

Any new encroachment on the right‐of‐way during the reporting period;

Any new integrity threats identified during the reporting period;

Any reportable incidents that occurred during the reporting period;

Any leaks or ruptures that occurred during the reporting period;

A list of all repairs on the segment made during the reporting period;

Ongoing damage-prevention initiatives on the pipeline and an evaluation of their success or failure;

Any changes in procedures used to assess and monitor the segment; and

Any company mergers, acquisitions, transfers of assets, or other events affecting the management of the segment.

Judge Boasberg explained the reasoning behind his decision as follows:

Recent events have made clear, moreover, that there is a pressing need for such ongoing monitoring. Earlier this month, the Keystone Pipeline leaked 210,000 gallons of oil in Marshall County, South Dakota.…The spill occurred near the boundaries of the Lake Traverse Reservation, home of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe, thus highlighting the potential impact of pipeline incidents on tribal lands.

Dakota Access must file these detailed reports beginning December 31, 2017, and every 60 days thereafter until the remand is complete. The Corps anticipates completing its supplemental NEPA analysis by April 2018, at which point the court will determine whether the Corps has fully complied with NEPA.

Cities Risk Ratings Downgrade for Failure to Address Climate Change Riskstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b7c939db83970b2017-12-04T18:12:37-06:002017-12-04T18:12:37-06:00In a November 28, 2017 report, Moody’s Investors Service warned cities and states that they faced the risk of a credit rating downgrade if they were not proactive in planning to mitigate the risks of climate change.Steven

In a November 28, 2017 report, Moody’s Investors Service warned cities and states that they faced the risk of a credit rating downgrade if they were not proactive in planning to mitigate the risks of climate change. The Moody’s report listed six indicators that it used to assess the exposure and overall susceptibility of states and municipalities to the physical effects of climate change, including share of economic activity derived from coastal areas, hurricane and weather damage as a share of the economy, and the share of homes in a flood plain. Based on these indicators, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas were the states most at risk from climate change. Although Moody’s couldn’t point to a specific state or municipality whose rating was (or might be) downgraded as a result of a failure to plan for climate change, the Moody’s report clearly sets the stage for such downgrades in the future.

Great Lakes Legacy Act Key to CERCLA Innovation?tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b8d2bea519970c2017-11-16T11:13:04-06:002017-11-16T11:13:04-06:00U.S. EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (“OSRTI”) recently indicated that it may be looking to the Great Lakes National Program Office’s (“GLNPO”) sediment cleanup program for best practices that might be applicable to Superfund cleanups.Steven

U.S. EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (“OSRTI”) recently indicated that it may be looking to the Great Lakes National Program Office’s (“GLNPO”) sediment cleanup program for best practices that might be applicable to Superfund cleanups. OSRTI’s evaluation of GLNPO’s sediment program is consistent with comments submitted by responsible parties and cleanup contractors that U.S. EPA should give more consideration to leveraging public and private funds in Superfund cleanups. The Great Lakes Legacy Act established the GLNPO, which has been working closely with states, local government entities and other stakeholders to address sediment issues at 31 areas of concern in the Great Lakes area. U.S. EPA’s website notes that the Great Lakes Legacy Act program has invested approximately $338 million to address these sediment impacted sites while leveraging an additional $227 million from non-federal parties. Whether this approach can achieve similar results at other Superfund sites remains to be seen, but such flexibility would appear to be consistent with Administrator Pruitt’s priority to more quickly and economically address CERCLA sites.

New GAO Report on DOD Drinking Water Recommends Improvementstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b7c931bd97970b2017-11-07T15:55:14-06:002017-11-07T15:55:14-06:00A new GAO Report finds that DOD failed to report drinking water-related violations for 16 of its installations and that overall compliance rates were lower for DOD-treated drinking water systems. The Report also noted some progress DOD has made in addressing emerging contaminants in its drinking water, specifically including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perchlorate.E. Lynn Grayson

A new GAO Report finds that DOD failed to report drinking water-related violations for 16 of its installations and that overall compliance rates were lower for DOD-treated drinking water systems. The Report also noted DOD has made some progress in addressing emerging contaminants in its drinking water, specifically including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perchlorate.

The Report identified different compliance rates between DOD-treated water systems and non-DOD-treated water systems. Just one percent of individuals who received non-DOD-treated water from military installation systems were served by systems with EPA or local health violations. However, 11 percent of individuals who received DOD-treated drinking water were served by systems with such violations. DOD has taken steps to limit individuals’ exposure to some chemicals, including providing alternative water supplies and installing water treatment systems.

The Report recommends the following key actions to improve DOD’s data, reporting, and oversight of drinking water requirements:

Identify and implement any necessary changes to DOD’s environmental compliance policy to clarify DOD’s reporting requirements for violations of health-based drinking water standards;

Identify and implement actions to increase understanding at Army, Navy and Air Force installations and commands about DOD’s reporting requirements for violations of health-based drinking water regulations; and

Review reported compliance data to identify the reasons for any differences in the number of violations of health-based drinking water regulations between DOD’s two types of public water supplies and take action to address the causes of any differences.

DOD concurred with each of these recommendations.

D.C. Circuit Rejects Sierra Club Challenges to LNG Exportstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b8d2ba6953970c2017-11-02T16:53:38-05:002017-11-02T16:53:38-05:00On November 1, 2017, the United States District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Sierra Club National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) challenges to the Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) authorization of export of liquefied natural gas from three facilities in Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas. Steven

On November 1, 2017, the United States District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the Sierra Club's National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) challenges to the Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) authorization of export of liquefied natural gas from three facilities in Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas. The court noted that its decision in Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy (Freeport), 867 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 2017) was largely determinative of the Sierra Club’s challenges to the LNG exports from these three facilities. In the Freeport decision, the court agreed that DOE had provided a reasoned explanation as to why DOE believed the indirect effects pertaining to increased gas production were not reasonably foreseeable. The court also found that DOE did not violate NEPA when declining to make specific projections regarding the environmental impacts associated with the increased production. The Freeport court also acknowledged that DOE had adequately considered the downstream greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the indirect effects of the LNG exports.

Notwithstanding the Freeport decision, the Sierra Club continued to challenge DOE’s authorizations for LNG exports for these three facilities, arguing that DOE’s reliance on an Environmental Assessment that found no significant impact (as opposed to an Environmental Impact Statement) is contradicted by evidence in the record. The court rejected this argument, noting that an agency’s finding of no significant impact will only be reversed if the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion which the court concluded was not supported by the record evidence. The Sierra Club also argued that DOE failed to consider the distributional impacts when evaluating “public interest” under the Natural Gas Act. However, the court noted that DOE had in fact considered the distributional impacts of the LNG exports.

Following this judgment, the Sierra Club will have lost all four petitions it filed against the DOE relating to NEPA assessments for LNG exports. The Sierra Club also lost all four of its petitions challenging FERC’s approval of these LNG exports. Please click here for a copy of the court’s November 1st decision.

Imagine a Day Without Watertag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09cc8a42970d2017-10-12T11:00:44-05:002017-10-12T11:00:44-05:00Today recognizes the third annual Imagine a Day Without Water event to raise awareness and educate America about the value of water. Over 500 organizations, cities, water authorities, and corporations have joined together once again to focus attention on the importance of this valuable resource and the critical need to upgrade and improve water infrastructure throughout the U.S.E. Lynn Grayson

Today recognizes the third annual Imagine a Day Without Water event to raise awareness and educate America about the value of water. Over 500 organizations, cities, water authorities, and corporations have joined together once again to focus attention on the importance of this valuable resource and the critical need to upgrade and improve water infrastructure throughout the U.S.

No water to drink, or even to make coffee with. No water to shower, flush the toilet, or do laundry. Hospitals would close without water. Firefighters couldn't put out fires, and farmers couldn't water their crops. Some communities in America already know how impossible it is to try to go a day without our most precious resource: water.

The 2017 Infrastructure Report Card published by the American Society of Civil Engineers provided an overall grade of a D+ for the status and condition of U.S. infrastructure. Particularly as to drinking water, the Report Card noted the following:

One million miles of pipes deliver drinking water and most date from the early 20th century with a 75-100 year lifespan

Over 240,000 water main breaks occur annually

Over $1 trillion dollars is the estimate needed to maintain/upgrade/expand service to meet water demands over the next 25 years.

Can you imagine a day without water? In the context of your business and its operations, please consider the resources available from these two organizations that address the following water-related considerations, including conditions and capacity, funding, public safety, future needs, and resilience and innovation.

EPA Announces Smart Sectors Program to Ease Regulatory Burden on Industrytag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b8d2af85fe970c2017-09-29T11:05:04-05:002017-09-29T11:05:04-05:00On September 26, 2017, EPA announced its new Smart Sectors program, a program aimed at easing the regulatory burden on industry. Allison Torrence

On September 26, 2017, EPA announced its new Smart Sectors program, a program aimed at easing the regulatory burden on industry. The official notice for this program was published in the Federal Register on September 26th (82 FR 44783), with a correction published on September 29th (82 FR 45586). EPA explained the purpose behind the Smart Sectors program in the notice:

EPA’s Smart Sectors program will re-examine how EPA engages with industry in order to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, create certainty and predictability, and improve the ability of both EPA and industry to conduct long-term regulatory planning while also protecting the environment and public health.

EPA has initially identified 13 sectors of industry to work with under this program, based on each sector’s potential to improve the environment and public health:

Aerospace

Agriculture

Automotive

Cement and concrete

Chemical manufacturing

Construction

Electronics and technology

Forestry and paper products

Iron and steel

Mining

Oil and gas

Ports and marine

Utilities and power generation.

EPA will designate staff-level points of contact for each industry who will act as liaisons among industry trade associations and companies, EPA program and regional offices, state and local governments, and other stakeholder groups.

Under this program, EPA will focus on three main areas:

Building relationships and improving customer service to sectors;

Developing additional expertise in each industry’s operations and environmental performance; and

Informing the planning of future policies, regulations, and Agency processes.

EPA is inviting participating industries to engage in dialogue and offer their own ideas to reduce environmental impacts. In addition, EPA will work to find creative ways to document environmental progress and regulatory burden reductions.

Jenner & Block Welcomes Sam Hirsch Back from ENRDtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09c71613970d2017-09-26T10:41:49-05:002017-09-26T10:41:49-05:00Jenner & Block is pleased to report that Sam Hirsch, former Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), has returned to the Firm as a Partner in our Washington, DC office. Steven
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><a class="asset-img-link" href="http://environblog.jenner.com/.a/6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09c56918970d-pi" style="float: left;"><img alt="Linkedin_Steven_Siros_3130" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09c56918970d img-responsive" src="http://environblog.jenner.com/.a/6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09c56918970d-75wi" style="margin: 0px 5px 5px 0px; width: 75px;" title="Linkedin_Steven_Siros_3130" /></a><em><em style="color: #000000;">By <a href="https://jenner.com/people/StevenSiros">Steven M. Siros</a></em></em></p>
<p><img 10="" alt="Sam Hirsch" border="1" hspace="10" src="https://people.theblock.org/services/public/streams/f8d18cd0-0644-4eb1-b1f9-61ca7a4bf6df/avatar?size=175&amp;v=a1051d64-6209-43a9-96b4-d1921426bf07" style="width: 175px; height: 175px; float: right;" /></p>
<p>Jenner &amp;&#0160; Block is pleased to report that Sam Hirsch, former Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), has returned to the Firm as a Partner in our Washington, DC office.&#0160;Sam was formerly an attorney with Jenner &amp; Block until 2009 when he moved to the U.S. Department of Justice, where he served as Deputy Associate Attorney General &#0160;before taking on his most recent role.&#0160;During his time at ENRD, Sam was primarily responsible for litigation and policy work relating to the prevention and cleanup of pollution, environmental challenges to federal programs, stewardship of public lands and natural resources, property acquisition, wildlife protection, and Indian rights and claims.&#0160;As Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy, he oversaw the drafting of more than 200 briefs, including more than 40 U.S. Supreme Court cert-stage, merits, and amicus briefs, as well as more than 150 appeal-recommendation memos to the Solicitor General. These briefs and memos dealt with cases in all 13 federal circuits and covered nearly the entire range of federal environmental and natural resources statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund), the Oil Pollution Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Lacey Act.</p>
<p>Sam was involved in all phases of the Deepwater Horizon litigation, including helping structure the global settlement, which directed more than $8.1 billion&#0160;toward restoring damaged natural resources in the&#0160;Gulf of Mexico. He also drafted portions of &#0160;the criminal plea agreements that created the National Academy of Sciences&#39;&#0160;$500 million&#0160;Gulf Research Program, which funds and conducts studies and projects to enhance oil-system safety, human health, and environmental resources in the&#0160;Gulf of Mexico&#0160;and other U.S. outer-continental-shelf regions that support oil and gas production.&#0160;</p>
<p>Sam may be reached at (202) 637-6335 or <a href="mailto:shirsch@jenner.com">shirsch@jenner.com</a>. &#0160;Welcome back Sam! &#0160;</p></div>
Third-Annual Environmental Attorney Reception at Jenner on Thursday 9/14tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09c29391970d2017-09-12T11:55:23-05:002017-09-12T11:52:41-05:00On Thursday, September 14th, from 5 pm to 7 pm, environmental attorneys and professionals will come together for a networking reception at Jenner & Block's offices in Chicago. Complimentary food and drinks will be provided thanks to the event’s sponsors. Allison Torrence

On Thursday, September 14th, from 5 pm to 7 pm, environmental attorneys and professionals will come together for a networking reception at Jenner & Block's offices in Chicago. Complimentary food and drinks will be provided thanks to the event’s sponsors. This is the third year Jenner & Block has hosted this event, which continues to grow every year. Jenner & Block will be joined by a number of bar associations and organizations:

CBA Environmental Law Committee

CBA Young Lawyers Section Environmental Law Committee

ISBA Environmental Law Section

ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources

Air & Waste Management Association Lake Michigan States Section

DRI Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Committee

Jenner & Block partner Allison Torrence is a former Chair of the CBA Environmental Law Committee and will be giving brief welcome remarks.

Details for this event are below. If you would like to join us at this reception, please RSVP here.

Who is in Charge of Protecting the Environment--The Role of U.S. EPA and State Environmental Agencies During a Hurricanetag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01bb09c10de7970d2017-09-08T09:43:22-05:002017-09-08T09:43:22-05:00Following Hurricane Harvey, and with the pending landfall of Hurricane Irma, the manner and degree to which federal and state agencies coordinate environmental protection duties may seem chaotic and disorganized. However, there is a specific protocol that guides these federal agencies in taking steps to protect the environmental in anticipation of and following a hurricane.Steven

Following Hurricane Harvey, and with the pending landfall of Hurricane Irma, the manner and degree to which federal and state agencies coordinate environmental protection duties may seem chaotic and disorganized. However, there is a specific protocol that guides these federal agencies in taking steps to protect the environmental in anticipation of and following a hurricane.

As brief background, in 1988, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the “Stafford Act”) was promulgated in an effort to establish an orderly process pursuant to which the Federal Government provides disaster and emergency assistance to State and local governments. At the request of the Governor of an affected State, the President may declare a major disaster or emergency. For example, on September 4, 2017, Florida Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in anticipation of Hurricane Irma. Shortly thereafter, President Trump declared a major emergency. Upon declaration of such a major disaster or emergency, the President appoints a Federal Coordinating Officer (“FCO”), a FEMA official who is charged with coordination of Federal assistance to the affected State and local governments.

FEMA’s primary focus is protection of human life and the majority of federal resources are obviously directed towards that goal. However, FEMA also works closely with other agencies such as U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies to implement emergency response activities focused on protecting the environment. FEMA has established numerous Emergency Support Functions (ESFs), which provide the structure for coordinating interagency support for a Federal response to declared disasters and emergencies. U.S. EPA has been designated as the ESF Coordinator for Emergency Response # 10—Oil and Hazardous Materials Response.

Here are some key environmental issues that federal and state agencies focus on during a natural disaster such as a hurricane:

Performing initial evaluations of drinking water systems to identify potential vulnerabilities, and then performing post-disaster damage assessments to identify impacted systems and provide resources to bring those systems back on line as rapidly as possible. Over 4,000 public drinking water systems were impacted in Texas and Louisiana as a result of Hurricane Harvey.

Taking steps to secure federal and state cleanup sites (i.e., proactively removing drums of waste and either shutting down remedial systems or ensuring that those systems will continue to operate) in advance of the hurricane, and then promptly assessing damage to those sites and taking emergency measures to abate any ongoing releases to the environment.

Assessing conditions at major industrial facilities and proactively ensuring that chemical and waste containers are appropriately secured and assisting in the implementation of preventive measures (i.e. process shutdowns).

Assessing and taking steps to abate releases from smaller industrial facilities that are likely to lack the emergency preparedness plans that should be present and implemented at larger industrial facilities.

U.S. EPA also has the ability to address potential fuel shortages by waiving certain fuel emission requirements under the Clean Air Act, as has already occurred in response to Hurricane Harvey.

U.S. EPA has a general hurricane website that provides useful information about protecting health and the environment before and after a hurricane. U.S. EPA will also typically set up websites that are intended to keep the public informed as to the status of its ongoing operations. For example, U.S. EPA set up a website for Hurricane Harvey and a website for Hurricane Irma. State regulatory agencies have also set up similar websites—TCEQ has a Hurricane Harvey website and FDEP has a Hurricane Irma website. Although we certainly hope that Hurricane Irma veers far east off into the Atlantic, if it does not (which unfortunately appears likely to be the case), federal and state resources are being readied in an effort to prevent and mitigate adverse environmental impacts associated with this storm.

Hurricane Harvey Response: TCEQ Suspends Environmental Rulestag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b8d2a82670970c2017-09-07T10:35:01-05:002017-09-07T10:35:01-05:00As the cleanup, rebuilding, and recovery continues in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, there has been increasing news coverage about the environmental consequences resulting from impacts of this devastating storm in Texas. We have all seen the coverage on the Arkema SA chemical plant explosion and fire in Crosby, Texas, as well as this weekend’s news that 13 Superfund sites in the Houston area have been flooded and are experiencing possible damage. What we have not heard much about is action on the part of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to do its part to allow residents and their commercial and industrial businesses to recover.E. Lynn Grayson

As the cleanup, rebuilding, and recovery continues in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, there has been increasing news coverage about the environmental consequences resulting from impacts of this devastating storm in Texas. We have all seen the coverage on the Arkema SA chemical plant explosion and fire in Crosby, Texas, as well as this weekend’s news that 13 Superfund sites in the Houston area have been flooded and are experiencing possible damage. What we have not heard much about is action on the part of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to do its part to allow residents and their commercial and industrial businesses to recover.

Last week, TCEQ issued a Request for Suspension of TCEQ Rules that may prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with Hurricane Harvey. The rules suspended in order to manage Hurricane Harvey impacts address regulatory obligations related to air, water, storage tank, fuel and waste management. In addition, TCEQ has developed a Hurricane Response webpage and made clear the Agency's priority is the recovery efforts helping to restore water and wastewater services as well as to assess damage, manage debris, and bring other critical services back online.

Most substantive federal environmental laws and their implementing regulations also provide emergency exemptions that can be triggered following any natural or manmade disaster to ensure laws do not interfere with rescue and recovery efforts. Most emergency exemptions require a declaration or finding on the part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or of another high-ranking government official. We will address EPA's Hurricane response actions in future blogs.

At a time when the residents of Texas need the best of their government, TCEQ is providing an excellent example of support, help, and a willingness to do what is right under the circumstances. Kudos to TCEQ!

Hurricane Harvey and Act of God Defense—Viable Defense or Futile Prayertag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01310fa9d1ee970c01b7c91bcb84970b2017-09-01T11:30:05-05:002017-09-01T11:30:05-05:00Following the disaster that has unfolded in Texas as a result of the unprecedented flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, affected businesses might be asking whether they might be able to avail themselves of the “Act of God” defense that is embodied in several federal environmental laws and the Texas Health and Safety Code.Steven

Following the disaster that has unfolded in Texas as a result of the unprecedented flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, affected businesses might be asking whether they might be able to avail themselves of the “Act of God” defense that is embodied in several federal environmental laws and the Texas Health and Safety Code. If ever an event qualified as an “Act of God,” many would likely agree that Hurricane Harvey falls into that category. However, if the experience of Hurricane Katrina provides any guidance, regulated entities are likely to face substantial hurdles triggering the “Act of God” defense for releases attributable to Hurricane Harvey.

Although not defined in the Texas Health and Safety Code, CERCLA defines an “Act of God” as the “unanticipated grave natural disaster or other natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, the effects of which could not have been prevented, or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.” 42 U.S.C. §9601(1). The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 contains a verbatim definition of “Act of God.” 33 U.S.C. §2701(1).

One might ask how many times the “Act of God” defense has been successfully asserted, and the answer is that there is not a single reported case where that defense has been successful.

Perhaps one reason that the defense has never been successfully asserted is that it requires the natural event to have been “unanticipated” and that the effects of the natural event could “not have been prevented, or avoided by the exercise of due care and foresight.” Hurricanes in the summer in Texas are unlikely to be considered unanticipated events (even if occasioned by massive flooding), and, in fact, CERCLA’s legislative history specifically notes “[f]or example, a major hurricane may be an ‘act of god,’ but in an area (and at a time), where a hurricane should not be unexpected, it would not qualify” as an “Act of God”. H.R. Rep. No. 99-253 (1977). Moreover, proving that the effect could not have been prevented or avoided also is likely to prove difficult. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, a 250,000 barrel above ground storage tank was dislodged which resulted in the release of approximately 1,000,000 gallons of crude oil. However, the responsible entity did not assert an “Act of God” defense but instead proceeded to remediate the spilled oil.

That is not to say that affected entities should not give due consideration to all potentially applicable defenses in the face of a natural disaster such as Hurricane Harvey. However, one should not turn a blind eye to the fact that reliance on an “Act of God” defense is likely to continue to face hurdles of biblical proportion.